Recruitment - Equivalence of qualifications not specified in advertisement cannot be entertained

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Recruitment Advertisement Criteria for Intelligence Officers. Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Non-Consideration of Equivalent Qualifications for Police Sub-Inspector Role

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under the judgment of Justice Jagmohan Bansal, has upheld the sacrosanct nature of recruitment advertisement terms for public posts. The court dismissed petitions filed by Jaskaran Singh and others, seeking to challenge the non-consideration of their qualifications for the role of Sub-Inspector in the Intelligence Wing, which were not explicitly specified in the recruitment advertisement.

The petitions, consolidated under CWP-1405 of 2017, CWP-5298 of 2017, and CWP-756 of 2017, contested the rejection of qualifications that were allegedly higher or equivalent to those specified in Advertisement No.2/2016 issued on September 8, 2016, by the Punjab State. The advertisement required candidates to possess specific educational qualifications, including a graduate degree along with an 'O' Level Certificate in Information Technology or a B.Sc/B.Tech./BE in relevant fields.

Jaskaran Singh, one of the petitioners, argued that his B.Tech in Electronic and Communication Engineering and a three-year diploma in Computer Engineering should be considered equivalent to the prescribed qualifications. However, the State rejected his claim due to the absence of a provision for equivalence in the advertisement.

During the proceedings, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ankita Thakur v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, which emphasized the necessity of adhering to the qualifications specified in recruitment advertisements unless provisions for equivalence or relaxation were explicitly mentioned. The court highlighted that any relaxation of essential eligibility criteria must be widely publicized to ensure fair opportunities for all candidates.

Justice Bansal noted the elapsed time since the initial selection process in 2017 and underscored the importance of physical and mental fitness for the demanding responsibilities of a Sub-Inspector in the Police Force. The court concluded that the petitioner could not be expected to meet the fitness criteria after such a significant time lapse, further supporting the decision to dismiss the petitions.

The judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment terms are binding and deviations without explicit provisions are not permissible. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to specified qualifications in public recruitment processes to maintain fairness and transparency.

Bottom Line:

Recruitment - Equivalence of qualifications not specified in advertisement or rules cannot be entertained - Advertisement terms are sacrosanct - Higher or equivalent qualifications cannot be substituted without provision in advertisement or rules.

Statutory provision(s): Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015, Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2016, Advertisement No.2/2016.

Jaskaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806330